Necro-thread, what did you Like about RQ3?

[Oldskolgmr]

I'm absolutely fascinated by RQ 3rd edition lately, so much so that I'm repurchasing a copy, because of the way previous experience was handled. 

I also liked the low power magic options it provided, (though RQ 1st edition also did that really well). 

Thoughts, comments? Dead silence?

Thanks.

<EDIT; I really figured no would comment on this thread. I guess I had no clue.>

Edited November 17, 2023 by Oldskolgmr
Responses

[jajagappa]

11 hours ago, Oldskolgmr said:

Thoughts, comments? Dead silence?

I ran a campaign for 10 years with it, so it certainly worked.

But I prefer RQG, particularly the addition of Runes, Passions, augments, and opposed rolls. I also prefer the return to CHA vs. APP.

I actually introduced some level of traits and passions into RQ3 (based on the NPC record form from Griffin Mountain) because I felt that was missing.

[PhilHibbs]

RQ3 seemed very professional as a game system. A lot of things had been tidied up and streamlined, there was consistency across character creation, if was well balanced, and easy to extend. RQ2 seemed quite haphazard in comparison. I guess a lot of people liked RQ2 because of that charming haphazardness, it had character, it was uncompromisingly its own thing.

So yes, I loved RQ3. I'd play it again in a heartbeat if a friend wanted to run it.

[Agentorange]

I liked the fact that there were fatigue rules, though I didn't  think they were done the best possible way. also preferred the use of INT to determine how many spells you could learn. Generally liked the relatively low starting  levels of expertise and character power ( not POW ! ) felt things were more of a challenge.

[jajagappa]

2 minutes ago, Agentorange said:

I liked the fact that there were fatigue rules

I jettisoned those very early - I found them way too tedious to deal with.

3 minutes ago, Agentorange said:

also preferred the use of INT to determine how many spells you could learn.

I like the split between CHA for spirit magic and INT for sorcery in RQG. That feels right to me.

[Akhôrahil]

48 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

RQ3 seemed very professional as a game system. A lot of things had been tidied up and streamlined, there was consistency across character creation, if was well balanced, and easy to extend. RQ2 seemed quite haphazard in comparison. I guess a lot of people liked RQ2 because of that charming haphazardness, it had character, it was uncompromisingly its own thing.

So yes, I loved RQ3. I'd play it again in a heartbeat if a friend wanted to run it.

I mean, say what you will about Avalon Hill, but they knew how to write rules.

[PhilHibbs]

31 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

I mean, say what you will about Avalon Hill, but they knew how to write rules.

...except that they didn't in this case. It was all written by Chaosium.

[Agentorange]

2 hours ago, jajagappa said:

I jettisoned those very early - I found them way too tedious to deal with.

 

It was more the notion of it I liked rather than the implementation. Not quite sure how I would have done it. Maybe rather than fiddly  fatigue points I'd have gone for 3 or 4 levels ?
bags of energy
rested
winded
exhausted

Edited September 1, 2023 by Agentorange

[Akhôrahil]

22 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

...except that they didn't in this case. It was all written by Chaosium.

No AH input? I did not know that.

[DreadDomain]

RQ3 is the game that literally cimented me to the hobby.

I really like character creation and the race-culture-age-occupation-religion structure remains my favourite to this day. I am happy that the structure was retained for RQG, with the addition of family history. RQ3 character creation was further enhanced by the addition of the player book in the Genertela box set and Gods of Glorantha.

I also like how RQG implemented character creation, withe the same structure but with skill bonuses instead but I like how in RQ3 you can easily adjust your starting age In a coherent manner, something RQG doesn't do off the shelves.

I generally prefer how secondary attributes, like hit points, are figured out in RQ3.

In combat, I like how movement works in RQ3 more than how it works in RQG and interactions between attacks levels of success and defenses levels of success are a lot easier and straightforward in RQ3 than it is in RQG. It feels like RQ3 combat generally works better, more seamlessly.

Having said that, we introduced some house rules over time. As examples we used multiple defenses from Stormbringer and personality traits from Pendragon. We also used the resistance table or opposed skills instead of RQ3 skills contest. RQG introduced similar rules, or better in the case of runes and personality traits.

I also like magic better in RQG and prefer the RQG skill list.

Edited September 2, 2023 by DreadDomain

[Agentorange]

The idea of Ceremonial magic and Ritual magic being categories in their own right wasa nice and welcome touch as well. Though we do see that in RQG terms as well.

[Uzz]

What struck me when I discovered RQ3 was the Culture distinction, and how it affected occupation and character creation, and the magic you could use. It was something really new for the young player that I was. And also my first contact with RuneQuest after years of reading enthusiastic reviews by magazines contributors.

To be honest, the game I discovered was disappointing. Class-less system and realism were not a new thing anymore, and the fantasy-earth setting was not really inspiring. Stormbringer soon came as a simpler and more direct way to play fantasy role playing with BRP rules. It took me more than 15 years to give Glorantha another chance with HeroWars.

[Soccercalle]

I really liked how previous skill experience was based on PCs age. 

[Joerg]

What I like about GMing RQ3 is that you don't need much in the way of tables - most of it can be calculated, even on the fly if your arithmetic ability is above 30%. No weird look-up tables with weirdly broken up distributions.

Previous experience in RQ3 was weird in assuming a steady annual increase of abilities starting at age 15.

One of the best elements of RQ3 was the World Book for GMs, giving a GM an idea about how agricultural life and production would be organized in any non-technological setting, providing the underpinnings of world building. Quite applicable to Glorantha, too, as the detail overlay maps by Greg had this chapter in mind.

 

RQ3 can be adapted to Glorantha, but it was never limited to that setting, much like the RQ2 rules.

 

There are things in RQ3 that no longer (or never quite) make me enthusiastic.

Spirit magic has a very colonialist feel to it - you need to conquer the territory of the poor spell spirit some priest or shaman sends against you (against its own nature or inclination).

Rune Magic reusabiity and economy in RQ3 need some adjustment or a lot more God Talker intermediate level states than just the Acolyte presented with the Ernalda cult in the De Luxe box. Unfortunately, that cult lacked immediate playability, and was ignored by most players I met.

 

[Brootse]

I played and ran RQ3 close to 3 decades. It was also the first rpg I ever played. I've tried many other rpgs, but I've always preferred RQ. It would take too long to list all the things I enjoyed about it, so to be concise; it's the feel of realism in fantasy. You don't just hit people straight in their hitpoints, and you can parry enemy swordsmen like in swashbuckler movies, and even powerful characters still feel like humans instead of superheroes. A RQ character is more like Zorro or Indiana Jones compared to the Supermanlike D&D characters.

And in addition to the great rules, RQ was coupled with Glorantha, which is an unsurpassed fantasy world.

[Mark Mohrfield]

One thing I liked was how elemental sizes gradually increased, with each extra cubic meter adding one extra characteristic level per cubic meter. Earth eementals, for instance, would gain 1d6+6 STR, 1d6 POW, and 2d6+6 per cubIc meter. That strikes me as much more logical than just dividing them into small, medium and large categories.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Mark Mohrfield

[DreadDomain]

Reading this thread is helpful even to understand why I love RQ3 so much (aside from the nostalgia factor of course). After all, aside from the front cover, RQ3 was far from a beautifully produced book nor was it inspirally written.

On 9/2/2023 at 6:13 AM, PhilHibbs said:

RQ3 seemed very professional as a game system. A lot of things had been tidied up and streamlined, there was consistency across character creation, if was well balanced, and easy to extend. RQ2 seemed quite haphazard in comparison. I guess a lot of people liked RQ2 because of that charming haphazardness, it had character, it was uncompromisingly its own thing.

So yes, I loved RQ3. I'd play it again in a heartbeat if a friend wanted to run it.

But when when it came to rule, it was concise and generally well explained. I did not like all the rules but they were all easy to understand and generally internally consistent.

On 9/2/2023 at 10:56 PM, Joerg said:

What I like about GMing RQ3 is that you don't need much in the way of tables - most of it can be calculated, even on the fly if your arithmetic ability is above 30%. No weird look-up tables with weirdly broken up distributions.

That's the main reason why I do not like RQG attack, defense matrices as they are and I simply streamline the results. To make it even easier, I could just use RQ3's resolution. Maybe I should try that.

On 9/2/2023 at 10:56 PM, Joerg said:

Previous experience in RQ3 was weird in assuming a steady annual increase of abilities starting at age 15.

While it is a fair comment, it was counter balanced by the fact that skills were capped at 75% (or 100% for some) so there is a clear limit of what can be acheived throught previous experience. Depending on skill base, skill category modifier and early increase, some skills would cap at around 27 (some earlier, some later). Every years thereafter, previous experience bonuses for that skill were lost, effectivelu lowering your yearly allocation. 

On 9/2/2023 at 10:56 PM, Joerg said:

One of the best elements of RQ3 was the World Book for GMs, giving a GM an idea about how agricultural life and production would be organized in any non-technological setting, providing the underpinnings of world building. Quite applicable to Glorantha, too, as the detail overlay maps by Greg had this chapter in mind.

Quite true. When I bought it I initially browsed pver that section to later realise that it was actually a very useful section.

On 9/3/2023 at 3:31 AM, Brootse said:

I played and ran RQ3 close to 3 decades. It was also the first rpg I ever played. I've tried many other rpgs, but I've always preferred RQ. It would take too long to list all the things I enjoyed about it, so to be concise; it's the feel of realism in fantasy. You don't just hit people straight in their hitpoints, and you can parry enemy swordsmen like in swashbuckler movies, and even powerful characters still feel like humans instead of superheroes. A RQ character is more like Zorro or Indiana Jones compared to the Supermanlike D&D characters.

That is another intangible that really resonated with me. RQ3 offered a playstyle that was very grounded and felt realˋ.

On 9/3/2023 at 3:31 AM, Brootse said:

And in addition to the great rules, RQ was coupled with Glorantha, which is an unsurpassed fantasy world.

Agreed. I discovered Glorantha because of RQ3. RQ2 never even came close to grab me as a game (I blame it at the way it was (not) organised) but with RQ3, I discovered both a system (RQ3 itself and then BRP as a whole) and a world that I loved.

I'll reiterate. RQ3 is far from perfect. Nowadays, I would mix and match stuff from RQ3, RQG, BRP and Mythras to create my perfect RuneQuest.

[Mark Mohrfield]

On 9/2/2023 at 8:56 AM, Joerg said:

Spirit magic has a very colonialist feel to it - you need to conquer the territory of the poor spell spirit some priest or shaman sends against you (against its own nature or inclination).

Land of Ninja (great supplement, lousy title) replaced this with “spirit communication” on pages 34-35.

[Mugen]

As I was born in 1975, and only started learning English in the mid-80s, I discovered BRP through translations. First StormBringer, then RQ3, as RQ2 was never tranlated. Basically, in my eyes, it was everything I liked in SB, but better. It had more clever solutions, more rules, more possible settings, more everything. It remained my go-to Heroic Fantasy game until the years 2000.

I loved how the game seemed to be grounded in 4 cultural systems (Primitive, Nomadic, Barbarian, Civilised) and how it worked with the 3 magic systems (Primitive were Spirit magicians, Nomads and Barbarians mostly Divine or Spirit, and Civilised mostly Sorcerous or Divine).

Above everything, Magic is what I loved in RQ3, despite the many flaws of Sorcery (which took me time to discover...). Enchants, POW economy, the variety of non-corporeal beings, etc.

Coming from SB, there are countless combat rules I never bothered to apply. Fatigue, throwback, etc. 

Nowadays, I think it's both lacking some elementary rules (such as the fact skills evolve completely disconnected from each oher, or he lack of a true skill opposition rule) and having too many fiddly bits (localized hit points, Strike Ranks, skill bonuses.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Mugen

[Godlearner]

9 hours ago, Mugen said:

Basically, in my eyes, it was everything I liked in SB, but better. It had more clever solutions, more rules, more possible settings, more everything. It remained my go-to Heroic Fantasy game until the years 2000.

I loved how the game seemed to be grounded in 4 cultural systems (Primitive, Nomadic, Barbarian, Civilised) and how it worked with the 3 magic systems (Primitive were Spirit magicians, Nomads and Barbarians mostly Divine or Spirit, and Civilised mostly Sorcerous or Divine).

Above everything, Magic is what I loved in RQ3, despite the many flaws of Sorcery (which took me time to discover...). Enchants, POW economy, the variety of non-corporeal beings, etc.

Coming from SB, there are countless combat rules I never bothered to apply. Fatigue, throwback, etc. 

Nowadays, I think it's both lacking some elementary rules (such as the fact skills evolve completely disconnected from each oher, or he lack of a true skill opposition rule) and having too many fiddly bits (localized hit points, Strike Ranks, skill bonuses.

Agree with over 99% of this. We still play mostly RQ3 with modifications and some addaptation from RQG (shamans and some new aspects of Rune Magic)

[Kloster]

What I like in RQ3:

- Rules consistency.

- A nice character creation set that allows a lot of things.

- Separation of Rules and world (namely Glorantha), allowing to play in almost any setting.

- A very special feeling.

[Orlanthatemyhamster]

A lot of it.

The smoothing of the stat bonuses, 

The char creation by age.

Bringing spell into line with each other.

The materials for the DM.

incomplete creatures stuff

Sorcery [even if it was flawed]

Fleshing out of the other Elder Races to some degree [I assume you are just talking about the big box set or we could be here a loooong time]

Other stuff I can't put my finger on at the mo.


 

[Orlanthatemyhamster]

On 9/1/2023 at 9:25 PM, jajagappa said:

I jettisoned those very early - I found them way too tedious to deal with.

I like the split between CHA for spirit magic and INT for sorcery in RQG. That feels right to me.

Except that it's not complete, your sorcery restricts the number of spirit magic spells you can know, for some bizarre reason.

[jackleg2010]

It was the first RQ product I ever owned. Very involved character creation.

[metcalph]

6 hours ago, Orlanthatemyhamster said:

Except that it's not complete, your sorcery restricts the number of spirit magic spells you can know, for some bizarre reason.

I always liken sorcery as being best performed with a clear head and knowledge of spirit magic to be under the influence of various intoxicants and narcotics.